2011 ACTFL CEFR Conference Report

for the group’s skill (reading, speaking, listening, or writing) as mentioned in the topic 1 papers
presented and to determine if these elements are adequately referenced in the ACTFL Guidelines
and the CEFR documents. Participants were asked to note whether the reference to the essential
element was adequate, incomplete, needed elaboration, or was missing. Group members were
asked to suggest revisions when appropriate. Following this breakout session, a representative
from each group presented the group’s findings in a general session, which was followed by a
discussion period.
The second breakout session was a benchmarking activity during which participants were
divided into the same skill-specific groups in which they had worked during the first breakout
session. For this activity, participants were asked to rate a variety of samples taken from both
ACTFL and CEFR assessments and to assign an ACTFL and a CEFR rating based on the
reference documents provided. Ratings for each of the skill groups were collected and are
currently being analyzed for correspondences.
Plenary Discussion: Prioritizing Initiatives
An open discussion on the second day of the conference generated many ideas and suggestions
for future ACTFL CEFR collaborative initiatives. The participants were then asked to indicate
their top 3-4 priorities. By an overwhelming vote, the desire to continue to explore the ACTFL
CEFR crosswalk was selected as the top priority, reaffirming this need not only for assessment
purposes but also for teaching, learning and policy reasons. Other priorities indicated were: to
develop a glossary of terms that are used in both scales, to secure funding to conduct long term
joint studies to investigate realistic student outcomes from different program models
(US/Europe/Canada), and to explore formative assessment initiatives that focus on
commonalities for all language learners. Additional cooperation initiatives mentioned included
the following: the intersections of the ACTFL K-12 Performance Guidelines and the CEFR, the
sharing of models of best practices, the testing of receptive skills, the extent to which the two
frameworks can be used to provide diagnostic information about language learners, and a study
of “can-do” statements.
Discussions were initiated regarding concrete steps forward that might be accomplished prior to
a next meeting. Specific initiatives included side-by-studies of Instituto Cervantes and ACTFL
Writing and Speaking tests, and Goethe-Institut and ACTFL assessments.